...
Info | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Color code:
M1 Actual represents the assessment before M1. M1 Target represents, at M1 date, what the team plans to implement. M4 result represents what has been really implemented at M4 date . All these fields are self-assessed by the team. |
AREA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Design / Run-Time | Performance | Stability | Resiliency | Security | Scalability | Manageability | Usability | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Min TSC Recommendations | M1 Actual | M1 Target | M4 result | M1 Actual | M1 Target | M4 result | M1 Actual | M1 Target | M4 result | M1 Actual | M1 Target | M4 result | M1 Actual | M1 Target | M4 result | M1 Actual | M1 Target | M4 result | M1 Actual | M1 Target | M4 result | |
Project Name | ||||||||||||||||||||||
A&AI | R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | WIP | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 (stretch goal; 2 unlikely) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1+ (see note 10) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Application Authorization Framework | R | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
APPC | R | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 (APPC) 2 (Integration) (Note 1) | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 - Partial (Note 2) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
CLAMP | D | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 (2 if CLAMP get more resource) | 1 | 1 | 1 (2 if CLAMP get more resource) | |
Common Controller SDK | R | 0 | 0 | 0 | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
DCAE | D & R | 1 | 2 (stretch) | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 (+topic security w/dependency Note3) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 (+logging v1.2) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
DMaaP | R | 1 | 1 | WIP | 1 | 1 | WIP | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | WIP Note 9 | 1 |
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
Documentation | NA | |||||||||||||||||||||
External API Framework | R | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Holmes | R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | WIP | 1 | 2 Stretch |
1(descoped) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 Stretch | WIP | |||||||||||||
NA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Logging Enhancements Project | R | 1 | 2 | 2 |
2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 (see note #8) | 1 | 2 | 1 | |||||
POMBA (under but separate pod from Logging) | R | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Microservices Bus | R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Modeling | D |
/R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
1 | 0 | 1 |
1 | 1 | 1 |
1 | 1 |
1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Multi VIM/Cloud | R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
MUSIC | R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
ONAP CLI | D & R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | |||||||
ONAP Operations Manager | NA | |||||||||||||||||||||
ONAP Optimization Framework | R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
ONAP Usecase UI Project Proposal | D | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1+ | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1+ | 1 | 1 | 1+ | 1 |
Policy Framework Project Proposal | D & R | 1 | 2 | 1+ See Note #5 | 1 | 1 | 1 See Note #4 | 2 | 2 | 1 See Note #4 | 1 | 2 | 1 No Silver Badging | 1 | 1 | 1 See Note #4 | 1 | 1 (logging v1.2 only) | 1 See Note #6 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Portal Platform Project Proposal | D & R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1+ See Note #7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
SDN-C | R | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||
Service Design & Creation | D | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1+(AAF integration and https support) WIP | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1(with |
logging v1.2 spec support) WIP | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Service Orchestrator | R | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
VFC | R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
VID | R | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 (Note 1) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 - WIP | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1(with |
logging v1.2 spec support) | 1 (Note 8) | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
VNF SDK | D | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
VNF Requirements | NA | |||||||||||||||||||||
VNF Validation (VVP) | D | NA | NA | NA | 1 | 1 | NA | NA | NA |
Note 1: Assumption is that platform 72 hour test is run by Integration team; Component team will run regression (Level 1) on Casablanca release
Note 2: APPC was Level 1 compliant in Beijing; however, Level 1 definition changes in Casablanca. APPC cannot commit to Level 1 due to pending item. See M1 Planning for more details.
Note 3: Dynamic topic provisioning and RBAC assignment has dependency on DMAAP-BC (DMAAP project) and AAF team
Note 4: The policy project added a new application component to support SDC Service Distribution for the HPA Use Case. However, promised resources did not fulfill any of the S3P work for this runtime component.
Note 5: Only the drools PDP had a performance plan improvement. We ran out of time to build a performance plan for XACML PDP. (NOTE: No requirements for brand new Apex PDP, that is targeted for 'E' release).
Note 6: The resources for doing logging v1.2 went away as part of the contract/restructuring between the two corporations early 2018.
Note 7: AAF integration into portal-sdk is partially complete and CADI integration is planned for next release - for more details see Risk #3.
Note 8: logging spec and implementation changes done with AT&T/TechMahindra to sync to Acumos - logging resources are absolute minimal during casablanca - 1.2 spec completion is pushed to Dublin
Note 9: AAF CADI integration is pending
Note 10: logging spec very close to 1.2; completion slated for Dublin